STUDIO
A
I
R
Design Journal Eaint MYat Noe Khaing Semester 2, 2018
CONT E N T S
[B.1]
Research Field
[B.2]
Case Study 1.0
[B.3]
Case Study 2.0
[B.4] ment
Technique: Develop-
[B.5]
Technique: Prototypes
[B.6]
Technique: Proposal
[B.7] Learning Objectives and Outcomes [B.8]
Appendix
[B.9]
References
Pa r Criteria
t B design
[B.1]
R e s e a rc h F i e l d I ntroduction What is Biomimicry? At a time when the environment is a major concern, designers and architects question nature to improve their performance. Their goal is to design buildings that are inspired by the elements of nature and imitate them. Whether it is to improve the ventilation and insulation of buildings, the solidity of structures or the quality of materials, or upgrade the speed of bullet trains, biomimicry is seen everywhere. More and more often, architects and designers are observing nature, not only as a place to protect but also as a model to follow. The biomimetic architecture was created with the aim of finding sustainable solutions in nature, not by imitating it, but by understanding the rules that govern them to save energy and avoid the production of waste. Biomimicry provides ideas to be discovered and adapted, from natural models to sustainable construction systems. It is a multidisciplinary approach to sustainable design that follows a set of principles rather than stylistic codes. The applications of biomimicry in architecture are organized on three levels25 : •
Organism level: architecture imitates an organism by applying its functions or forms to a building. This is the case of the Eden Project, in England, with geodesic spheres that host thousands of plant species. The ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart also resembles a sea urchin’s skeleton.26
•
•
to:
Level of behavior: the buildings resemble their interaction with the environment and their survival modes. The Eastgate Center building by Mick Pearce in Zimbabwe imitates African termites to maintain a constant internal temperature without the aid of mechanical cooling. Level of the environment: mimics the different junctions of elements in an ecosystem. A good example is the Sahara Forest Project, a greenhouse based on solar energy with no waste system to produce food in the middle of the desert.
Potential Applications and Benefits of Biomimic Design Biomimicry lies in the application of the following principles: that architecture works based on what works in the natural world; that it reaches an efficient use of natural resources,; that uses chemistry that is friendly to the environment and at the necessary temperatures; that demands experience and workforce from the local environment; that achieves flexibility in the face of changing conditions; that seeks cooperation between the different disciplines; that works based on diversity.27 The applied principles of biomimicry would help translate the language of biology into the language of design and create designs that are both innovative and appropriate to this age, particularly through the help of computation and parametric tools.
25 Moheb Sabry Aziz and Amr Y. El sherif, “Biomimicry As An Approach For Bio-Inspired Structure With The Aid Of Computation”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55.1 (2016), 707-714 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.10.015>. 26 Amy Frearson, “ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion At The University Of Stuttgart | Dezeen”, Dezeen, 2011 <https://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/> [Accessed 7 September 2018]. 27 Seyedehaida Mirniazmandan and Ehsan Rahimianzarif, “Biomimicry An Approach Toward Sustainability Of High-Rise Buildings”, J Archit Eng Tech, 6: 203 (2017)
Bio m im icry D e s ign in n o vatio n I n s p ir e d By Natu r e
Fig. 1 The Eden Project, England
Fig. 2 The ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at
the University of Stuggart
Fig. 3
The Eastgate building : Uses a mechanism of thermodynamics similar to that of termite mounds. It saves about 70% of the energy that would have been consumed by having followed more classical architectural patterns.
Fig.
Innovation Biomimicry encompasses the development of new materials and techniques which will reduce the impact of buildings on the environment and the construction of an architecture that dialogues with nature, and the socio-political context. There are studies that have proved the benefit of nature within our interior spaces.28 Even at a cursory glance, integrating nature into a buildingdesign increases our creativity, productivity and improve our concentration. Thus, the incorporation of nature in the built environment is a good economic investment. The lessons of nature are valuable to be applied as innovative technologies for the implementation of the buildings of the future. However in biomimicry, the transfer of knowledge occurs at a level of performance through the analysis of the strategies carried out, both in biology and in engineering, for problem-solving.29
The objective is that when creating more natural designs a reserve and resource efficiency occurs. The growing problems of pollution and the increasing effort to improve construction techniques with the aim of achieving more sustainable buildings call for the adoption of biomimicry. The biomimetic architecture is created to find sustainable solutions for nature, starting from the understanding of the rules that govern it, instead of focusing on stylistic codes. There are energy savings and no waste is produced. These efficiencies not only follow an aesthetic pattern similar to nature, but also opt for an efficient space not only in energy issues, but in constructive, material or functional areas. These natural mechanisms seem to work better than some of the most advanced technologies at present, they require less energy and do not produce waste or leave traces.
Adaptibility and Environmental Sustainability The climatic characteristics of each zone vary, and most constructions do not correspond to the local constructive criteria or to the climatic conditions of the place. To supply this lack of interaction with the environment, systems that use large amounts of energy are used to control internal comfort, affecting the performance and energy efficiency of the building. Due to these disadvantages observed in the systems commonly used in building envelopes, biomimicry as a tool in architecture helps to develop an active design with the environment. The main benefits of the biomimetic architecture are energy savings and less or no waste production. The building is well ventilated naturally, the low energy consumption, then the energy saving could be around 40 percent, therefore it has a lesser impact on the environment.30
3
28 Mirniazmandan, p. 203. Frearson, “ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion At the University of Stuttgart”. 30 Pooya Lotfabadi, Halil Zafer Alibaba and Aref Arfaei, “Sustainability; As A Combination Of Parametric Patterns And Bionic Strategies”, Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57 (2016), 1337-1346 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.210>. 29
[B.1]
R e s e a rc h F i e l d Continued Narrowing it down Now that the importance of Biomimicry in design has been established, I would like to pick a certain aspect of nature to be applied as part of forming the sociobiological model for my design project: Drawing Inspiration From A Case Study Kokkugia is an architecture research collaborative and some of its projects have already been analysed as part of the case study in Part A. Mostly, their projects rely heavily on self-organizing agent systems and their local decisions for the emergence of form and organization inspired by biological phenomena such as of animal swarms. In contrast to the other existing biotechnologies, this approach is based less on the animal bios and more on the collective nature. This is valuable because focusing on an individual can only tell us so much about its environment whereas looking at “the collective as a whole is able to adapt nearly flawlessly to the changing conditions of its surroundings.” 31
this can be used to solved difficult planning problems as they appear in architectural design. The following sections will be dedicated to better the understanding of a design technique which is based on the self organisational capabilities of computational agent collectives, as well as assess the ways and extent to which it can be used to generate a response with respect to the guidelines identified in the given brief.
When these behaviors are documented digitally and rendered into a specific movement, this can give rise to “life like behavior among artificial agents,”32 and this, in turn, endow the researcher with persisting knowledge of these autonomous particle systems. This knowledge can be translated into problem solving intelligence. When combined with computing technologies,
Sebastian Vehlken, “Computational Swarming: A Cultural Technique for Generative Architecture”, Footprint: Delft Architecture Theory Journal, 8:15 (2014), p.11 <https://doi.org/ 10.7480/footprint.8.2.808> 32 Vehlken, p. 10-11. 31
Fig. 4 Swarm Intelligence - Kokkugia
[B.2]
C a s e
s t u dy 1 . 0
voltadom By Sk yl ar Tib b its
Fig. 5 Voltadom
Voltadom by skylar TIBBITs is an art installation for the 150th Anniversary Celebration and Festival of Arts, Science and Technology Festival at MIT. Its structure is a combination of multiple thickened doubly curved surfaces that span over a corridor to create an arch. The idea is based off the construction of the vaulted ceilings often featured in Gothic cathedrals of the past.33 However, in order to make fabrication easier for such a complex form, they transformed the complicated double vault construction to that of rolling a sheet of material which can be bent into a cone-like shape. Relation to Research Field This project has been successful to a certain degree in the integration of biomimicry to create innovative designs. After some research, I suspect that this project could have been inspired by the Balanus balanus in a way that it was constructed out of cone like shapes that closely resemble the form of the species but also in a sense that it was designed to appear as though the individual cells could make alterations to their shape and orient themselves according to the local curvature and discontinuities, just like the shells of the Balaunus balanus. Fig. 6 Balaunus balanus and its ability to fit onto a surface
The downside While Voltadom demostrated the possibilities of fusing nature with nature to redefine conventional construction methods and make it easier, when we looked at the structure closely and watched its fabrication videos, it seemed as though the process was still rather tedious with a group of maybe 6 people trying to assemble some 400 cones together piece by piece, by hand while it claimed itself to be a self-replicating system that can adapt to a given space by filling voids and creating boundaries.34 Perhaps, this is where the boundary is drawn. However, rather than to completely replicate the process and turn it into our whole purpose, expirimentation with the definition of Voltadom is to be considered as a starting point of our attempt to develop a deeper understanding of how such a self supporting, adaptive emergency structure was created using parametric modelling. From there, we hope to assess the extent to which this design fulfilled its design objectives and how such a method could be used to fulfill ours. Focus
As my main research focus, I wish to explore the possibility of the use and simulation of intelligent agents, i.e. swarm behavior in parametric design to create new types of form fitted to the brief. While the Voltadom project does not exhibit such a behavior precisely, I have chosen to explore this definition, primarily due to the flexibility in its direction and emergent property that arises when the individual components are joined together. Voltadom has a complex structure that could be broken down into simpler components. This illustrated a potential for development. Mainly, we will be looking at the cones’ ability to conform to various surfaces and geometries to test the flexibility of this method.
33
Luis Lopes, “Voltadom By Skylar Tibbits | Skylar Tibbits”, Arch2o.Com <https://www.arch2o.com/voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/> [Accessed 8 September 2018]. 34 Lopes , “Voltadom By Skylar Tibbits | Skylar Tibbits”.
I
t
e
r
#1
Spec ies 1 n [Alt er atio of Basi c Par amet er Valu es]
#2
Spec ies 2 [Usi ng a cone as the base geom etry to morp h onto surface ]
#3
Spec ies 3 Alte r atio n of Give n [Par amet er Valu es <Af ter Trim ming to crea te voro noi >]
#4
Spec ies 4 [Sur face morphin g (2) (con trol l able hole size )]
#5
Spec ies 5 [Sur face morp hing (3) and with weav erbi rd mesh Edit ]
a
t
i
o
n
M
M
a
t
r
i
x
|
1
.
0
R
e
s
u
l
t
Process
Goal Revisited
As the first step of our exploration, we played around with the provided parameters and components to investigate how things worked. This is documented as specie 1 and 3 in the previous slide. We learnt that the process was quite simple: make a cone, populate, trim, make voronoi, which was controllable and easy! We then took a modular cone generated from the downloaded definition, multiplied it and morphed them onto different lofted surfaces. We introduced a range parameter to control the individual cellsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; height, base radius, aperture radius, and cell population in order to test its ability to conform and adhere to different surfaces. Different tessallations resulted in varying deisgns. However, we hit a dead end afterwards. The beauty and variation provided by the non-uniformity and randomness of the cells in the original Voltadom model were still missing. At that point, we discovered that room for exploration of the provided definition was much smaller than we thought, To push the boundaries futher, we decided to adopt the concept of cones and extend it to our own definition using weaverbird to observe whether this could make a difference.
The goal of this experiment was ultimately to test the definitionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s boundaries and observe the extent to which its inputs can be manipulated to produce a form that would correspond to the brief, is creative and along the lines of our selected research field. We were also interested in learning how its basic geometric shape - the cone, was performing to give the structure variety while maintaining its structural integrity.
Selection Criteria To provide us with a clearer direction during our design process, we have set up a matrix identifying the key components that we want to integrate into our design
Ha b it ib il it y
oh no!
Discussion The outcomes varied greatly from the original case study, perhaps because we used a much more dramatic surface as our basic shape to maximize the effect of the definition. There were limitations still present in the way that we could control the range and type of parameters to generate differnt forms due to having the same geometric shape for all the modular units. However, we were fairly satisfied by the outcomes as they promise room for development and flexibility of form to a certain extent. However, as a result of the dramatic transformations within the form, the construction methods might also vary. This could contradict the Voltadom projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s objective, which was to develop a system whose construction was quick and easy. Furthermore, we have discovered that another restriction of this definition lies in the way that we had to manually control and tweak the shape of the base surface for a desired outcome and it was rather frustrating and inconvenient. Whether this technique could be applied to the following steps for this project is not confirmed .
C o n st r u ct ib il it y Efficiency and Conspicuity In Delivering Key Concepts and Ideas
Ad a p t ib il it y t o D iffer en t En vir o n m en ta l C o n dit io n s a n d cha n g es
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Successful Iterations
Hab itibili ty
Ha b it ib il it y
C o n str uc tibili ty
C o n st r u ct ib il it y
Efficiency and Conspicuity
Efficiency and Conspicuity
Adap tibili ty
Ada p t ib il it y
Hab itibili ty
Ha b it ib il it y
C o n str uc tibili ty
C o n st r u ct ib il it y
Efficiency and Conspicuity
Efficiency and Conspicuity
Adap tibili ty
Ada p t ib il it y
[B.3]
C a s e
s t u dy 2 . 0
Fib rous
Tower B y Kokkugia
The fibrous tower is one of the ongoing experimental research projects by Kokkugia. The design comprises a single outer shell with selforganising property and sufficient load-bearing capacity to eliminate the need for extra structural support and ‘construct a highly differentiated tower’.35 “The initial topology of the shell’s articulation is algorithmically generated through a cell division procedure in response to the tower geometry.”36 The final result, as explained earlier, is now both functional and ornamental. While the idea of having a single load bearing envelope is questionable due to various structural 25 26
reasons, the idea is worth exploring for its agent based algorithmic design methodology used to generate an open-ended responsive design rather than one single master plan. This concept of the structure adapting and changing to fit numerous scenarios could become a strong design feature for our house for the leadbeater possums and thus, we have decided to reverse engineer this project. We hope to achieve this not only on the level of aesthetics and unanimated form but also on a behavioral level, i.e. to capture the dynamic motion and adaptive capacities of the swarms on the move, either digitally or physically.
Kokkugia. Architizer, ‘Fibrous Tower’, Archtizer (Architizer, Inc., 2018) < https://architizer.com/projects/fibrous-tower/> [Accessed 17 September 2018]
A M
t i
m
t i
c
e k
i
m n
g
p t
h
t e
f
o
1 r
m
Reverse EngineeringProcess Summary 1. Surface Creation - Two closed curves lofted together 2. Point Population - A point cloud is generated over the surface 3. Voronoi cells constructed using random generated points 4. Voronoi cells trimmed using the initial surface geometry 5. Voronoi cells exploded and unnecessary parts are culled out 6. A mesh is produced and given a thickness 7. Mesh frame relaxed to produce the final form
#6 #5
#7
#4 #3 #2 #1
Line Drawing
Final Result
A M i
t m
i
t c k
i
e n g
m S w
a r
p m
t B
-
e h a v
2 i
o r
Click Me!!
Reverse Engineering Process
Behavioral Control Note: Negative Values create attraction
In the next step, we should try to avoid drawing the geometry manually in Rhino
Increasing thenumber of points increases the number of fibres, while the number of loops make them longer,. This affects the density. However, most of the times, the computer can only process a small quantity of initial points or loop iterations. Otherwise, the program crrashes.
Create Mesh from Curve
Reverse Engineering Process Continued Summary 1. Create Initial Mesh Geometry in Rhino 2. Project point cloud onto geometry to use these points as the initial position for the swarm behavior simulation 3. Use the curves that have been generated from the swarm simulation and give them mesh thickness
Line Drawing
R
e
s
u
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
As promised, we made two attempts to reverse engineer this project. The first method was more efficient and successful in replicating the complex form of the case study. It also provided us with a number of points that could be used to construct a strong argument, in terms of material strength, aesthetics and composition. However, I became more interested in the outcome generated from the second attempt. Although this model did not represent the Fibrous Tower accurately. it successfully reflected the core idea applied in the project and will open up a path to create something quite different and interesting if developed further. Furthermore, the iterations generated using the definition from â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;attempt 1â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (see B.4) proved to be rather rudimentary, with a lesser scope for development. However, we also found it very difficult to manipulate and control the input parameters during our second attempt to make variations and adjustments to the overall form as this script requires a very high processing power. Another point I would like to make concerns experience and functionality. Both the models evoke feelings toward open-ness and while this could be an interesting aspect of design to explore and make use of in future design projects, for this particular proposal, we came to a conclusion that there should be a higher degree of enclosure in the design for it to comply with the requirements of the design brief. If we can have more control over the surface perforations and form variation using the ideas from the first method in B.3 and incorporate it into the second definition as a base surface for swarm behavior simulation, they would be more successful in terms of satisfying the brief â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s requirements of a possum house.
s
[B.4]
T e c h n i qu e D e v e lo p m e n t P r o
c
e
s s
B r
i
e
f
i
n g
For this session, we focused mainly on the continuous evaluation and analysis of the pros and cons of the design methods that we have explored during the earlier stages within this project and their subsequent products, in accordance with the requirements of the brief. To achieve this, we firstly re-assessed this selection criteria to better respond to the brief.
Ha bi ti bi l i ty Constru cti bi l i ty
This point of reference assesses the extent to which the needs of the client are understood and met. This includes the basic physical and dimensional requirements as well as the level of comfort. What is the likelihood of successful fabrication?
Organicism
Does the design reflect the dynamism and unpredictability represented by the swarms in the given context?
Con n ecti vi ty
Does the organization and arrangement of components within the design facilitate interaction between the users themselves and the surrounding environment?
Responsi ven ess
To which extent does the design respond to the environmental conditions?
Identification of Problem Areas 1. 2. 3. 4.
Creating a habitable space - should be big enough for the client to live in Adding a barrier layer into the building fabric, for protection from external agents Focusing on responsive design - is it responding to the movement of the sun? rain? changeable dimensions? Fabrication - Is it really possible to fabricate the fibrous wall as the single load bearing component of the building? How do we add rigidity and strength? 5. How can the input parameters be better controlled to achieve desirable results? 6. How to ensure a seamless connection between the installation and its environment? (In this case, tree branches.) 7. Using our previously mentioned methods, it was also impossible for the design to disclude a base surface for the purpose of simulating swarm behavior since it was beyond our computing skills. We now have to find a way to create a base surface without the need to manually tweak the shape in Rhino. Thus, we decided to to reverse engineer another project that is form on an idea along similar lines as the Fibrous Tower to use as the base surface and add a degree of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;organicismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Urban Agency, previously mentioned as a precedent in Part A, was chosen for this purpose due to its architectural form and organization.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#6 #5 #7
#6 Reverse Engineering Process Summary 1. Generate main shape 2. Use the contour component to get section profiles along the shape 3. Rebuild the curves and loft them together to get the surface 4. Use Lunchbox plugin to divide the surface into hexagon cells 5. Use Cull pattern and attractor points to cull out the openings 6. Divide what is left into two parts using the dispatch component and attractor points 7. Give one part a solid mesh using Starling plugin 8. Use offset component to give the cells an opening in the middle 9. Give each part thickness and smooth it using Weaverbird
U rb an
Agency B Y KO KKUGIA
I
t
e
#1
Spec ies 1
#2
Spec ies 2
#3
Spec ies 3
#4
Spec ies 4
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
M
a
t
r
i
x
|
2
.
0
I
t
e
#5
Spec ies 5
#6
Spec ies 6
#7
Spec ies 7
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
M
a
t
r
i
x
|
2
.
1
I
t
e
#1
Spec ies 1
#2
Spec ies 2
#3
Spec ies 3
#4
Spec ies 4
#5
Spec ies 5
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
M
a
t
r
i
x
|
3
.
0
R
e
s
u
l
t
Successful Iterations
Hab iti bi l i ty
Ha b it ib il it y
Constr uc ti bi l i ty
C o n s t r u ct ib il it y
Organicism
Organicism
Connecti v i ty
C o n n ect ivit y
Resp onsiven ess
R esp o n s iven es s
Discussion The first two matrices showcase results from the exploration of definitions written during the previous reverse-engineering precedent study. The first three species illustrates the ways in which the main geometry could be affected by changing the basic parameters. The parameters include the main radius, total height, surface variation, cell indirection factor, thickness and level. Species 4 and Species 5 investigate how the main geometry could be twisted and rotated to produce a strikingly new and different form. Species 6 includes the derivatives generated directly from the second reverse engineering attempt. The second last species in this matrix also represents a significant variation from the main
geometry, achieved using metaballs. Metaballs were considered due to their versatility in form and structure. This method has allowed me to onveniently create more organic shapes with high variability within a group of samples inside the grasshopper interface as metaballs can be divided into many different components. Furthermore, there is also a high degree of relevance to the research field as this method can be served as another digital input to creating a self-organizing structure. The idea of randomizing metaballs is then applied onto the next stage, which was to reverse engineer Urban Agency. These results are documented in the second matrix. For this exploration, we focused mainly on creating and controlling the size and placement of oculi for entry as well as controlling
A
n
a
l
Hab itibi l i ty C o n s t r uc tib ility
y
s
i
Ha b it ib il it y C o n st r u ct ib il it y
Organicism
Organicism
Connec tivi ty
C o n n ect ivit y
R e sp onsiveness
R esp o n s iven es s
the amount of light that would be filtered into the structure to create a soft glow. We also realised that this can introduce some control over the amount of rain entering and being drained, and waste being disposed. Mainly, the more successful iterations are the ones I believed would address the concerns that have been previously stated and be more suitable for the design brief. I have avoided the ones surface perforations that are either very large or small in size in consideration of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;habitabilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; factor. I have also avoided the ones with either completely closed or open openings due to practicality reasons.
s
[B.5]
T e c h n i qu e : P rotot y p e s
â&#x20AC;˘
The prototype developed is an indirect extension of the previous case studies. The hybrid borrows the frame of metaballs as the load distribution of these structures are in equilibrium, which means no colums would be needed. In order to achieve our desired shape, we turned to 3D fabrication this time round as casting a rubber mould and constructing it out of clay proved to be fruitless.
â&#x20AC;˘
While making iterations for species 4 in matrix 1, I have also discovered that metaballs are in fact made up of tessallated planar surfaces, which can be broken down into regular polygons. This means that while the surfaces look smooth on the screen, it would be harder to achieve the same effect physically. This attribute should be considered in Part C as this can get in the way of achieving a desired aesthetic for the design.
â&#x20AC;˘
As the next part of our design process, we incorporated the fibres from reverse-engineering fibrous tower attempt 2 to serve as a connecting agent from the nest to the tree branches. Another reason of including this was due to structural reasons. Only having one layer of structural support means that it is easier to disrupt the equilibrium when an external force is applied. If the fibres are designed to be strong enough, this will provide a level of protection to the inside nest. However, at this point, we have not been able to come up with a fabrication method to produce a prototype that can accurately represent the form and organization of these fibres and their inherent qualities, such as in the fibrous tower.
[B.6]
T e c h n i qu e : P ro p o s a l
S
i
t
e
&
C
l
i
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
A r
t
o i
f
p i
c
o i
a
l
s
e
T r e
d e
D L
i
e m b
s
i
g
n
The chosen outcome is purely a fabricated habitat for the leadbeater possum species to reside in. It is designed to blend into the surroundings to attract the leadbeater possums and as an attemp to maintain the ecological balance. The nest will be slightly slanted when connected to the site to allow for better disposal of rain water and waste matter . The space is created wide enough for a family of possums and an entry hole has been cut out for them. The geometric formation has been imagined with holes in some parts to allow for ventilation and filter light to create just a soft glow. The fibres are designed to connect the nest to the tree in the most natural form we could imagine and in the mean time, act as a platform for the possums to travel efficiently from the nest to the other parts of the tree.
[B.7]
L e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s & O u tc o m e s
• Objective 1 – Interrogating a brief by considering the process of brief formation in the age of optioneering enabled by digital techniques • Objective 2. developing “an ability to generate a variety of design possibilities for a given situation” by introducing visual programming, algorithmic design and parametric modelling with their intrinsic capacities for extensive design-space exploration; • Objective 3. developing “skills in various threedimensional media” and specifically in computational geometry, parametric modelling, analytic diagramming and digital fabrication; • Objective 4. developing “an understanding of relationships between architecture and air” through interrogation of design proposal as physical models in atmosphere; • Objective 5. developing “the ability to make a case for proposals” by developing critical thinking and encouraging construction of rigorous and persuasive arguments informed by the contemporary architectural discourse. • In addition, Studio AIR will enable students to: • Objective 6. develop capabilities for conceptual, technical and design analyses of contemporary architectural projects; • Objective 7. develop foundational understandings of computational geometry, data structures and types of programming; • Objective 8. begin developing a personalised repertoire of computational techniques substantiated by the understanding of their advantages, disadvantages and areas of application.
Studio Air is a learning process of understanding of understanding computational design through theories of computation to generating design ideas and forms in an effective way. As I progress through this subject, I have been introduced to a lot of new elements. In part B I have learned to familiarise myself to digital techniques to develop a living space that is appropriate to the client. The most valuable aspect of this exercise was that by carefully studying a fairly unconventional client, we recognised the importance between the client-architect relationship as well as the environmental and social responsibilities that we have upon us as architects. I find that a lot of ‘modern’ buildings are just modern for the sake of being modern without careful consideration to the building’s context and surroundings. I have especially tried to avoid this by thinking like a possum and not a human. While this may appear easy when spoken, this part was the most challenging for me in practice. After Part B, I have also developed a better understanding of relationships between architecture and air than at the start of the semester through critically considering the opportunities and limitations around the site. In terms of computational design, I find that while digital soft-wares that I’ve used for this part of this project seem to offer a wide array of design methods and they definitely have an advantage over traditional form finding and fabrication methods, it has its limitations in the way that it lacks data on fabrication feasibility and accuracy. For instance, while the iterative process of making things appear unrecognisable from the original form gave us a better understanding of the metaphorical concept of swarm architecture and allowed us to discover alternative solution strategies previously unimagined, the program does not allow us to examine what they actually do. We understand that prototyping allows regular testing to provide a strong desired performance framework and walk toward a transformative solution. However, unless one has the ability to understand the physics and recognizes the inherent material properties, it can be very hard to utilise this opportunity provided by iterative design with just our digital models created within rhino and grasshopper. For instance, we only found out that we cannot use the same fabrication method to construct the nest after spending $200 on materials. Of course, this could have been avoided with more experience and research on our part but I feel that there should be a less time and money consuming way to discover these indistinct problem spaces and know when you are digging in the wrong place, Additionally, there is a wide gap still existing between the digital work space and the real world, especially when designing a self organizing system using the tools in grasshopper. At this point, it is still very conceptual in a sense and it was not possible for us to mimic the behaviour of the swarms beyond a metaphorical and rather superficial level, perhaps due to our lack of experience.
[B.8]
A lg o r i t h m i c S k e tc h e s
[B.9]
R e f e r e n c e s Aziz, Moheb Sabry, and Amr Y. El sherif, “Biomimicry As An Approach For Bio-Inspired Structure With The Aid Of Computation”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 55 (2016), 707-714 <https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.10.015> Frearson, Amy (2011). ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion at the University of Stuttgart, Dezeen. Retrieved from <https://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/31/icditke-research-pavilion-at-the-university-of-stuttgart/> on 3rd September 2018. “Kokkugia”, Kokkugia.Com <https://kokkugia.com/> [Accessed 19 September 2018]
Lopes, Luis, “Voltadom By Skylar Tibbits | Skylar Tibbits”, Arch2o.Com <https://www.arch2o.com/ voltadom-by-skylar-tibbits-skylar-tibbits/> [Accessed 8 September 2018] Lotfabadi, Pooya, Halil Zafer Alibaba, and Aref Arfaei, “Sustainability; As A Combination Of Parametric Patterns And Bionic Strategies”, Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57 (2016), 1337-1346 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.210> Mirniazmandan, Seyedehaida, and Ehsan Rahimianzarif “Biomimicry an Approach toward Sustainability of High-Rise Buildings”, J Archit Eng Tech, 6 (2017) <https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9717.1000203> Golanda, Gabrielle (2017). “Architecture Inspired by Nature Biomimicry from Art Nouveau to NeoFuturism”, Architizer. Retrieved from < https://architizer.com/blog/practice/details/biomimicry-binetsom/> on 3rd September 2018. Vehlken, Sebastian “Computational Swarming: A Cultural Technique for Generative Architecture”, Footprint: Delft Architecture Theory Journal, 15:2 (2014), 9-24 <https://doi.org/10.7480/footprint.8.2.808> Architizer, ‘Fibrous Tower’, Archtizer (Architizer, Inc., 2018) < https://architizer.com/projects/fibroustower/> [Accessed 17 September 2018]